What is different?
In Houston today, a 6-month old baby will be taken off a respirator against the wishes of the child’s mother. The doctors caring for this child have diagnosed him with a condition called thanatophoric dysplasia, characterized by tiny lungs and a rib cage too small to support life. The doctor’s believe that as the child grows, he is slowly suffocating. The mother believed her baby needed more time to grow, so he could be weaned from the ventilator. Legal proceedings in this case have taken less than 4 months. Read the story here.
The appellate court today will also be hearing arguments regarding the cessation of artificial feeding and ventilation for a 68 year old man who has been declared brain dead by the doctors. The family disagrees with this diagnosis, and claims he just needs time to get better. Legal proceedings to date have taken approximately 2 weeks. Read this story here
On Friday, barring any last minute legal maneuvering, Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube will be disconnected or clamped off. She has been deemed to be in a persistent vegetative state, and CT scans of her brain show that the majority of the cerebral cortex has degenerated and been replaced by cerebral spinal fluid. Her family disagrees that Terri is in a persistent vegetative state, and that given the proper therapy, she should recover some level of function. Legal proceedings in this case have taken nearly 7 years.
So, what is the difference in these cases? In each case, the court has made a decision to discontinue life support over the objections of the family. In each case, the family believes that the doctors are wrong, and that their loved one could improve with the proper care, support and time. In two of these cases, the individual is on a respirator. Is that the difference? Is it really more humane to essentially allow someone to suffocate as opposed to withdrawing feeding and hydration? Why is there such outcry over ending Terri Schiavo’s life, and so little over the two current Houston cases? There is no talk of living wills, or what the individual would have wanted.
Is the difference money? The Schindlers’ legal battle is being largely financed by a variety of right-to-life groups. The two Houston cases are being handled by a Legal Aid attorney, although in the case of the baby, the hospital is paying the mother’s legal fees.
Is it publicity? The Schindlers have set up a website devoted to their legal battle. They have made statements to the press, given TV interviews, enlisted the aid of legislators. The families here in Houston have spoken with the local press, but it doesn’t seem to have gone much farther.
So, what makes Terri Schiavo different from Sun Hudson or Spiro Nikolouzos? It seems apparent that none of them have any chance of recovery, and all require medical intervention to go on “living”, so what’s the difference?
When you figure it out, please let me know.
The appellate court today will also be hearing arguments regarding the cessation of artificial feeding and ventilation for a 68 year old man who has been declared brain dead by the doctors. The family disagrees with this diagnosis, and claims he just needs time to get better. Legal proceedings to date have taken approximately 2 weeks. Read this story here
On Friday, barring any last minute legal maneuvering, Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube will be disconnected or clamped off. She has been deemed to be in a persistent vegetative state, and CT scans of her brain show that the majority of the cerebral cortex has degenerated and been replaced by cerebral spinal fluid. Her family disagrees that Terri is in a persistent vegetative state, and that given the proper therapy, she should recover some level of function. Legal proceedings in this case have taken nearly 7 years.
So, what is the difference in these cases? In each case, the court has made a decision to discontinue life support over the objections of the family. In each case, the family believes that the doctors are wrong, and that their loved one could improve with the proper care, support and time. In two of these cases, the individual is on a respirator. Is that the difference? Is it really more humane to essentially allow someone to suffocate as opposed to withdrawing feeding and hydration? Why is there such outcry over ending Terri Schiavo’s life, and so little over the two current Houston cases? There is no talk of living wills, or what the individual would have wanted.
Is the difference money? The Schindlers’ legal battle is being largely financed by a variety of right-to-life groups. The two Houston cases are being handled by a Legal Aid attorney, although in the case of the baby, the hospital is paying the mother’s legal fees.
Is it publicity? The Schindlers have set up a website devoted to their legal battle. They have made statements to the press, given TV interviews, enlisted the aid of legislators. The families here in Houston have spoken with the local press, but it doesn’t seem to have gone much farther.
So, what makes Terri Schiavo different from Sun Hudson or Spiro Nikolouzos? It seems apparent that none of them have any chance of recovery, and all require medical intervention to go on “living”, so what’s the difference?
When you figure it out, please let me know.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home